Hardyston Board of Education members Donna Carey and Jean Barrett are facing questions after reports surfaced suggesting a friend may have received special treatment regarding her child’s residency status - all without a public vote, tuition arrangement, or explanation.
Behind Closed Doors
According to individuals familiar with the matter, a recent executive session may have included a discussion about a non-resident student. Unusually, the parent involved was reportedly present during that closed-door meeting - presumably to explain her situation directly to the board. While executive sessions are confidential, they are typically limited to board members and legal counsel unless otherwise authorized.
Following that session, there was no public action, no vote, and no announcement of a tuition agreement. However, the student in question appears to remain enrolled in Hardyston schools - despite reportedly no longer residing in the district.
A Question of Access and Influence
This particular parent has also been seen attending multiple board meetings and, notably, was observed sitting at the same table as Carey and Barrett during a recent local political party meeting. While friendships and political alliances are not unusual in small-town governance, when policy decisions appear to benefit those same connections, the line between service and favoritism begins to blur.
Is this an innocent coincidence - or a case of board members quietly using their positions to help a political ally?
No Vote. No Policy Exception. No Transparency.
Unlike other families who have faced residency enforcement and tuition obligations after moving out of district, there has been no public acknowledgment of an exception in this case. No public policy change has been announced, and the full board did not vote to authorize any special arrangement - at least not in public session.
These circumstances raise serious concerns about transparency, consistency, and fairness.
Time for Answers
To be clear: no one is accusing Carey or Barrett of violating the law. But when public officials appear to make decisions that benefit their friends - behind closed doors, without public disclosure - they open the door to mistrust.
Residents deserve a clear and consistent application of policy, not one that seems to hinge on personal relationships.
This situation may not just be about one student. It’s about whether rules apply to everyone - or only to those without connections.
The views expressed in this article are based on publicly available information, personal observations, and credible reports. Questions raised here are matters of public concern, and the intent is to promote transparency and accountability in local government.